5 ms·

This honestly seems like an example of how to handle layoffs well. After the repeated messes of Better, the non-layoff layoffs at Meta, and a bunch of smaller e

This honestly seems like an example of how to handle layoffs well. After the repeated messes of Better, the non-layoff layoffs at Meta, and a bunch of smaller examples over the last year and a half, it's actually nice to see them handled well. They always suck, but being transparent, ripping the band-aid off, and giving the people laid off as much support as possible is the way to go. They're also far enough from the holidays that people can still job search, but close enough that most people in tech could eat a few weeks of savings to take an extended holiday. Don't know if that was deliberate, but it seems well timed

ok_dad 4y ago
Yea, if you look at the benefits for those laid-off, it's pretty supportive (at least from my American experience). They are paying at least 2 months severance, you keep your hardware, you get 6 months healthcare, and they weren't dicks about doing this. I would say this is better than most recent layoff announcements and the fact that they even state that they will re-hire anyone later on as a priority shows that they aren't trying to blame "low performers" or something, it's just some colleagues that they can't keep on right now due to business reasons. Now, maybe their business reasons are dues to their own ineptness or bad luck or whatever, but they handled this pretty well. I say this all because we tend, on HN and other places, to focus on the shitty aspects of every bad news story, and rarely speak up when something goes right that is still shitty, like this.
- londons_explore 4y ago
  The real question is is it too supportive? Will the shareholders be keen to see so much of their money go to ex-employees for not much gain in PR or morale of existing employees?
  - Icathian 4y ago
    Perhaps the shareholders' feelings are less important than the financial and emotional security of the employees and their families? Your priorities seem very, very backwards to me.
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      I mean if thats the case, we could give $10M to each employee, and close the company.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    Letting employees keep computers seems pretty rational. It generates goodwill, and if the company demanded the computers back, they'd have nothing to do with most of them (except newer ones that could be given to existing employees who happen to have older machines). They could sell them used, but not for much (especially after paying for prepaid shipping boxes).
    - londons_explore 4y ago
      Remember that it you give the employee the computer, you need to pay payroll taxes on the value of the computer, and the employee needs to pay income taxes on the same. That's why many people reject 'free' gifts from their employer.
      - gnicholas 4y ago
        Due to the way depreciation works, it ends up being a minimal impact. When my wife left a university job after 2 years, they sold her the laptop she'd been using for about $250. It wasn't high end, but this was about 25% of what it cost new, and 35% of what it would have cost my wife to buy a similar computer new at that time. Being taxed on a couple hundred dollars is roughly the cost of a dinner out. It is definitely better to accept a free computer at such a discounted valuation and turn around and sell it. In no event would you come close to losing money — the taxable value of the computer would be far lower than what you could sell it for, and your tax on the taxable value would be just a fraction of that.
maximilianroos 4y ago
100%. I think this is the best / "least bad" layoff message I've read.

ok_dad 4y ago

Yea, if you look at the benefits for those laid-off, it's pretty supportive (at least from my American experience). They are paying at least 2 months severance, you keep your hardware, you get 6 months healthcare, and they weren't dicks about doing this. I would say this is better than most recent layoff announcements and the fact that they even state that they will re-hire anyone later on as a priority shows that they aren't trying to blame "low performers" or something, it's just some colleagues that they can't keep on right now due to business reasons. Now, maybe their business reasons are dues to their own ineptness or bad luck or whatever, but they handled this pretty well. I say this all because we tend, on HN and other places, to focus on the shitty aspects of every bad news story, and rarely speak up when something goes right that is still shitty, like this.

londons_explore 4y ago
The real question is is it too supportive? Will the shareholders be keen to see so much of their money go to ex-employees for not much gain in PR or morale of existing employees?
- Icathian 4y ago
  Perhaps the shareholders' feelings are less important than the financial and emotional security of the employees and their families? Your priorities seem very, very backwards to me.
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    I mean if thats the case, we could give $10M to each employee, and close the company.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- gnicholas 4y ago
  Letting employees keep computers seems pretty rational. It generates goodwill, and if the company demanded the computers back, they'd have nothing to do with most of them (except newer ones that could be given to existing employees who happen to have older machines). They could sell them used, but not for much (especially after paying for prepaid shipping boxes).
  - londons_explore 4y ago
    Remember that it you give the employee the computer, you need to pay payroll taxes on the value of the computer, and the employee needs to pay income taxes on the same. That's why many people reject 'free' gifts from their employer.
    - gnicholas 4y ago
      Due to the way depreciation works, it ends up being a minimal impact. When my wife left a university job after 2 years, they sold her the laptop she'd been using for about $250. It wasn't high end, but this was about 25% of what it cost new, and 35% of what it would have cost my wife to buy a similar computer new at that time. Being taxed on a couple hundred dollars is roughly the cost of a dinner out. It is definitely better to accept a free computer at such a discounted valuation and turn around and sell it. In no event would you come close to losing money — the taxable value of the computer would be far lower than what you could sell it for, and your tax on the taxable value would be just a fraction of that.

maximilianroos 4y ago

100%. I think this is the best / "least bad" layoff message I've read.